Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Hmm, I see the clarification you're making here. Availability of money <> revenue impact, I get it.

Still, seeing that a project is revenue-impacting or revenue-generating (has the relationship to the money-making potential of the company) is relative to the individuals who are viewing it. For example, if there is an effort you could do that generates 2x revenue, but those in charge of your company choose not to pursue it "because they are already making a ton of money and cannot see past the costs".

I guess this comes down to how good of a business leader one has.

I have so many times seen good projects/ideas, ideas that can clearly make money, even lots of money - but in the wrong company, with the wrong people, or attitudes, or beliefs - don't matter. These are the times when, if you are the person with such an project or idea, you ask whether or not you are the right "fit" for the organization - since they are not recognizing or prioritizing the value of your project/idea.

I suppose you could look at this as efficient capital allocation, if you assumed perfect business leadership. Perfect business leaders would only pursue the revenue generating activities that made the most sense.

I would argue that we are far from perfect, and that we often let ego, opinion, culture (or even "data") influence our decision-making about revenue-generating activities.. which brings us back to the point that culture is still relevant. Something that popped to mind related to this is the "Ultimatum game" from psychology/economics [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game



You just penned a passionate defence of how important competition is to keep company cultures functioning.

You don't need perfect leadership, if you have a reality check they can't ignore.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: